I find his presentation fantastic, very matter of fact and he delivers the content as if he actually knows what he's talking about rather than just going off a script. He also provided real information about the topic rather than just fluff that you get with most youtube/news shows. Lastly, the best thing was that there was no "pls liek and subcscribe gais!" at the end, very refreshing change from the usual schtick.

This is wonderful stuff. I love the presentation too. Long steady shots of the subject, with a steady stream of information and no fluff. No rapid fire editing. No stupid music. No cutting away to a talking head who will preview/sum-up the video every 60 seconds.

↑ ↑ TYT's "progressive daily news and political commentary" since they reared their Sirius head has derptly crafted serious issues into their brand of junk-food news and tabloid-sensational fluff since Cenk started belching his snipish drool 5 years ago, and the kids here eat it up like Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Cocktail Juice w/codeine and promethazine...

Purple Drank Internet Drizzle

It's good to see him do some of that hard-hitting investigation into those stories that really matter in the world today instead of his usual fluff pieces.

two of every animal just acknowledges DNA, the rest is all fluff!~

That's one way to fluff up the pillows

Sorry Joe, no room for "cute" and "president" in the same sentence.
Hard to support fluff when there's pressing matters beyond Easter eggs circumventing any humanitarian appeal this tool might garner from the developmentally disabled.

Obama = Criminal

8 minutes of fluff, in a ~9min video. Jeezus scoob....get to the point man.

I do agree with with you that RL is not a movie. I just got the feeling from your original comment that you felt that there is no point in being able to defend yourself because you will probaly just fuck it up. You did say "duh" to the idea that concealed carry is fantasy that will never pan out.
You also go on to say that the CCW was "lucky " he didnt shoot any innocent people with his "blazing" guns, when actually he stated that he didnt fire because there were people hiding in the Charlottes store behind the shooter.
You can call this story just an anecdote if you wish. The part "I dont get" is why you would put more stock in this old, staged , slanted , piece of shitty fluff study, than a recent , pertinent bit of Real Life.

What I find most interesting is not the DJs (who are unfunny idiots) or the woman (while it's sad, she was also clearly unstable that something as trivial as this would drive her to suicide).

It's the public reaction. When I first noticed this story, it was mentioned in a fluff piece in online news and the public reaction was "haha, what an idiot to be fooled like that". Then news of her suicide came through and the focus switched to a witch hunt on the DJs.

I'm willing to bet large sums of money that the people baying for their blood are the very same people who laughed about it a few days ago.

@Stormsinger

No, its just that you worded it as though you wanted to kill the man when you watch Rambo. You dont know the man himself so your words are just fluff without meaning, dont like his style ? okay. Do not appreciate his talent ? okay. First blood was a very decent movie full of character development and story telling with many hidden meanings as well as more abrupt tales of what a war vet goes through.

But you would not have gotten that out of "those" movies now would you. Enjoy the ignorance, fill your belly with it. I like how you put some thought into the reply, with a hint of angry bear.

>> ^chingalera:

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.
Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??
Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


But who are you chastising? The people who vote democratically for it or against it (and they seem to vote for it), or the people who post it for it to be voted on?

I can't watch cenk, i think he has a great mind for doing this kind of thing, but until he can siphon out the 30000 miles per hour hyperactivity and fluff and deliver it in a good way, i can't watch. But videosift will continue to sift up whatever is popular and sift down whatever is not!

I get sick when i see the 3 billionth pomplamoose video being posted on the strength of having a very plain/oddly pretty girl with her face 3 inches from a webcam, but that's just what people like. I think this has a lot more content than that at least; there's a lot worse things you could get annoyed about first.

Hook them with the fluff and then zap them with science.

The people doing the criticizing are not the target market. How do you get young girls to get interested in science? These girls are being overwhelmed with marketing from the fashion industry and it's working. Why not take a page from their book?

I agree, this fluff looks like crap to me as well. But to young teen girls, this is the bait, not the message. Get them in the door and then show them the "real case videos of real girls doing real science.

You can't expect to bait using stuff that looks-over-the-heads of your target. Young girls are not as headstrong as you'd think. They can be intimidated easy and very few have the self confidence to say, "Ya, I'm going to be a scientist, because I'm smarter than those guys."

Once you get them in the door and show them girls interacting in a scientific environment, girls their age, then they can start to believe, "Yes, I can do this too."

Sure, maybe a different team could have created a different video that may have intrigued them in a different way. but I think they had a specific game plan here.

I love how Murkin is simply just trying to tolerate the unwanted attention he's receiving from this slightly manic fluff ball.

Man if that is true I am even more upset with the DEA. If you were going to be fair dealers should not be in trouble as much as users because dealers are further removed from any supposed harm and don't actually cause any harm at all.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jonny:
"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!

He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.
All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!
Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?

Here's a more recent CNN story.
Yes, he was handcuffed in the cell. The house that was raided seemed to be an MDMA distribution center, and the DEA claims they seized 18,000 pills, as well as several guns and cases of ammo. But it also wasn't the kids house; it seems he was just there with friends to get high. Which is why he wasn't charged and supposed to be released.